Artículo Angela Bermudez

Revista de Estudios Sociales No. 52 rev.estud.soc. Pp. 256.
ISSN 0123-885X Bogot, abril - junio de 2015 Pp. 102-118.
Four Tools for Critical Inquiry in History,

Social Studies, and Civic Education*
Angela Bermudezv
Received date: May 30, 2014
Acceptance date: September 30, 2014
Modification date: December 19, 2014
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7440/res52.2015.07
ABSTRACT
The promotion of critical thinking is an important but elusive goal in history, social studies, and civic education. Teachers often
struggle to translate general definitions of critical thinking into specific pedagogical tools to plan learning activities and to
observe and interpret student work in these subjects. They also struggle to distinguish between teaching critical content
and teaching students to think critically. In this paper, I draw upon scholarship on critical thinking, history education, moral
education, and critical pedagogy to propose four tools for critical inquiry in the social domain: Problem-posing, Reflective
skepticism, Multi-perspectivity and Systemic thinking. I describe how each tool works, discussing how they integrate the
epistemic purpose of fostering good understanding with the social purpose of cultivating thoughtful, responsible, pluralist and
non-violent citizens.
KEY WORDS
Critical inquiry, critical thinking, history education, social studies education, civic education, critical pedagogy.
Cuatro herramientas para la indagacin crtica en la enseanza de la historia, las

ciencias sociales y la educacin ciudadana
RESUMEN
La promocin del pensamiento crtico es un objetivo importante pero escurridizo en la enseanza de la historia, las ciencias
sociales y la educacin ciudadana. A muchos docentes les cuesta traducir las definiciones generales de pensamiento crtico
en herramientas pedaggicas especficas para planear sus clases y para evaluar el trabajo de sus estudiantes. A veces se
confunde ensear contenidos crticos y ensear a pensar crticamente. En este artculo propongo cuatro herramientas para
la indagacin crtica en el mbito social: Pensamiento problmico, escepticismo reflexivo, multiperspectividad y pensamiento
sistmico. Para su definicin retomo elementos de la literatura sobre el pensamiento crtico, la enseanza de la historia,
la educacin moral y la pedagoga crtica. Describo lo que cada herramienta nos permite hacer, y cmo cada una de ellas
articula la funcin epistmica de fomentar la comprensin con la funcin social de cultivar ciudadanos reflexivos, responsables,
pluralistas y no-violentos.
PALABRAS CLAVE
Indagacin crtica, pensamiento crtico, enseanza de la historia, enseanza de las ciencias sociales, educacin ciudadana,
pedagoga crtica.
This paper results from the theoretical research conducted as part of the authors Doctoral Dissertation, Thinking Critically Together: The Intellectual
and Discursive Dynamics of Controversial Conversations, at the Harvard Graduate School of Education (2008). Funding was provided by the Spencer
Foundation through a Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship.
v Doctor in Education (Harvard Graduate School of Education, United States). Senior Researcher of the Center for Applied Ethics at Deusto University,
Spain. Her latest publications include Analyzing Critical Reflection Within Relational and Sociocultural Contexts: Making the Case for the Need to Integrate Cognitive and Discursive Approaches. SAGE Cases in Methodology. Thousand Oaks Sage Publishers, 2014, and Youth Civic Engagement: Decline
or Transformation? A Critical Review. Journal of Moral Education 41, n 4 (2012): 529-542. E-mail: angeber@deusto.es
102
Four Tools for Critical Inquiry in History, Social Studies, and Civic Education
Angela Bermudez
Dossier
Quatro ferramentas para a indagao crtica no ensino da histria, das cincias

sociais e da educao cidad
RESUMO
A promoo do pensamento crtico um objetivo importante, mas escorregadio, no ensino da histria, das cincias sociais
e da educao cidad. Para muitos docentes, difcil traduzir as definies gerais de pensamento crtico em ferramentas
pedaggicas especficas para planejar suas aulas e avaliar o trabalho de seus estudantes. s vezes se confunde ensinar
contedos crticos e ensinar a pensar criticamente. Neste artigo proponho quatro ferramentas para a indagao crtica no
mbito social: Pensamento problmico, ceticismo reflexivo, multiperspectividade e pensamento sistmico. Para sua definio,
retomo elementos da literatura acerca do pensamento crtico, o ensino da histria, a educao moral e a pedagogia crtica.
Descrevo o que cada ferramenta nos permite fazer e como cada uma delas articula a funo epistmica de fomentar a
compreenso com a funo social de cultivar cidados reflexivos, responsveis, pluralistas e no violentos.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE
Indagao crtica, pensamento crtico, ensino da histria, ensino das cincias sociais, educao cidad, pedagogia crtica.
of current public issues, enduring moral dilemmas, and

competing historical narratives. However, in spite of this
wide appeal, research shows that critical deliberation is
rare in the classroom, and when it does happen, it is often
of low quality (Hess 2004). Many teachers recognize the
opportunities that education in the social domain offers
for cultivating critical thinking; they value this goal and
are willing to organize their teaching around it. However,
when the rubber meets the road, many teachers struggle
to move from abstract statements to concrete practice.
Over the years that I have been working with teachers, I
have come to identify three recurrent sources of struggle:
We live amid bewildering complexities. Obtuseness and refusal of

vision are our besetting vices. Responsible lucidity can be wrested
from that darkness only by painful, vigilant effort, the intense
scrutiny of particulars. Our highest and hardest task is to make
ourselves people on whom nothing is lost. This is a claim about
our ethical task, as people who are trying to live well.
(Nussbaum 1990, 148)
he promotion of critical thinking has been

a longstanding goal of education. Often
connected to active inquiry-based learning,
it is assumed to empower students to take
charge of problems they face in real life, from
abstract puzzles in intellectual endeavors to the practical
challenges of participating in a community. Advocates
of critical thinking stress that this kind of pedagogy is
necessary if we want students to construct deep and
sophisticated understanding, and if we aspire to make
what they learn useful in their lives, relevant to their
world, and supportive of their flourishing as human
beings (Dewey 1933; Duckworth 2006; Perkins 1995).
Others support this idea by adding that critical thinkers
develop skills and dispositions that are essential to
sensitive, informed, tolerant and active citizens who
are able to sustain a democratic culture (Barber 1989;
Glaser 1985; Gutmann and Thompson 2004; Levine 2007;
Nussbaum 2006; Parker 1996).
a. Teachers appreciate the general notion of critical

thinking, but they find it hard to translate into
a specific pedagogy that fits the requirements of
teaching subjects in the social domain. Most of the
literature on critical thinking focuses on general
cognitive skills (e.g. analysis and inference) that are
at the basis of thoughtful learning in any discipline.
But how do the general skills of critical thinking fit in
with the more particular thought processes required
in the social sciences and humanities?
b. Even within the social domain, critical thinking
carries different meanings. Some stress the capacity
to propose plausible arguments that are well supported
by evidence, while others highlight the formation
of autonomous judgment, or the capacity to hold
discrepant perspectives. Still others insist that what
defines critical inquiry is the capacity to form systemic
depictions of power relations and of the causes and
dynamics of conflict. It is challenging for teachers
to reconcile these ideas that come from disparate
theoretical traditions.
This connection between critical thinking and democratic

ideals is appealing to many educators in subjects such as
history, social studies, and civic education. International
literature on education for democracy includes countless
academic publications, policy documents and curricula
that advocate engaging students in the critical discussion
103

c. Teachers struggle to distinguish between teaching

critical content and teaching students to think
critically. This becomes particularly tricky as
important bodies of critical theory regarding issues
like race, gender, and class make their way into school
curricula. This move is indeed important, but it begs the
question: Does teaching critical content develop critical
thinking? Are the two things aligned? Not necessarily.
In fact, when the teaching of critical content is not
well supported by critical inquiry, it easily results in a
perplexing paradox that I call critical dogmatism.
operations and claim different epistemic and social

purposes. Such diversity is what leads me to propose a
four-tool model of critical inquiry.
While it is true that each tradition puts more weight
on some tools and less on others, there is no simple
correspondence that would allows us to assert that one
tool derives exclusively from one tradition, or that these
traditions understand critical inquiry as the use of one
single tool. The dialogue between these distinct bodies
of literature is valuable precisely because they offer
different angles from which to conceptualize the four
critical inquiry tools. In what follows, I review how
the notion of critical thinking appears in these four
traditions, revealing both divergences and convergences
among them. Then, in the next section, I characterize
each tool, drawing selectively on the work of scholars
from the different traditions that help us understand
their nature and potential.
In this paper I draw upon scholarship on critical thinking,

history education, moral education and critical pedagogy
to identify and characterize four core tools for critical
inquiry in the social domain: Problem-posing, Reflective
skepticism, Multi-perspectivity, and Systemic thinking. These tools
capture the particularities of critical thinking applied to
social issues in subjects such as history, social studies
and civics. While there are conceptual and procedural
differences among these fields, these four tools highlight
critical traits that cut across them. I will describe how
each tool works and discuss how they integrate the
epistemic purpose of fostering deep understanding with
the social purpose of cultivating thoughtful, responsible
and pluralist citizens that are able and willing to manage
conflict in non-violent ways.
Critical Thinking
The concept of critical thinking developed primarily in
the fields of philosophy (epistemology), education and
cognitive psychology. According to what is known today
as the Critical Thinking Movement, critical thinking
consists of a purposeful, meta-cognitive and self-corrective
process in which individuals monitor the quality of their
thinking, detecting and rectifying flaws in arguments,
thinking procedures, problem-solving strategies, and
decision-making processes (Ennis 1962; Lipman 2003; Paul
1990; Siegel 1988). In Enniss words, Critical thinking
is reflective and reasonable thinking that is focused on
deciding what to believe or do (Ennis 1985, 45). This
approach focuses on the appraisal of arguments following
criteria of formal and informal logic, which are thought
to set the standards for intellectual accountability. Thus,
in this tradition, critical thinking consists of a host
of general cognitive skills such as analysis, inference,
evaluation, interpretation, explanation, as well as a
dispositional dimension characterized as a critical spirit,
a probing inquisitiveness, a keenness of mind, a zealous
dedication to reason, and a hunger or eagerness for
reliable information (Facione 1990, 11). After an intense
discussion about whether critical thinking is contentneutral or domain-specific (Ennis 1990; McPeck 1990),
most in the Critical Thinking Movement consider that
while critical thinking skills and dispositions transcend
specific disciplines, exercising them adequately
demands domain-specific knowledge of concepts and
methods (Facione 1990).
Different Theoretical Traditions

Problem-posing, reflective skepticism, multi-perspectivity and
systemic thinking address different facets of critical
inquiry that allow us to examine and shed light
on different challenges posed by social issues.
My intention in characterizing four distinct
tools is precisely to stress that critical inquiry is
multidimensional. This is most evident when we
examine different bodies of literature that have
advanced particular conceptions of critical thinking.
Scholars in critical thinking, history education, moral
education, and critical pedagogy define different ways
of knowing and reflective qualities that are deemed
necessary for a sophisticated understanding of social
issues. These four traditions of research (and practice)
are rarely put into conversation with one another;
but if we do so, their different approaches appear to
be complementary rather than irreconcilable. They
share common goals such as fostering inquisitiveness,
informed reflection, independent thinking, and
rigorous performance. Yet, in defining the essence
of critical, they emphasize different intellectual
104
Angela Bermudez
Dossier
History Education
traditions, and b) engage with these dilemmas and

controversies through reasoned dialogue, seeking to
recognize different viewpoints and coordinate them in
judgments and choices that are comprehensive, fair,
and responsive to rights and needs of different parties
in conflict. Moral judgment becomes critical in so far
as it takes reflective distance from ones egocentric
and socio-centric perspective, and is self-directed, yet
sensitive to and inclusive of others.
Scholarship on history education integrates the

epistemology of history with cognitive-developmental
psychology and constructivist pedagogy. While
recognizing the importance of general cognitive skills,
researchers in this field argue that history education
must teach core concepts and procedures that are
specific to the subject matter and epistemology of
historical inquiry (Carretero and Voss 1994; Dickinson,
Lee and Rogers 1984; Shemilt 1980; Stearns Seixas
and Wineburg 2000). Historical understanding
rests they claim on particular thinking processes
involved in establishing the significance of historical
events in relation to present concerns, developing
plausible explanations through the heuristics of
corroboration and sourcing, contextualizing beliefs
and social practices, coordinating processes of change
and continuity, and crafting multivocal narratives
and multicausal accounts. The term critical thinking is
not very common in this literature, but the concept
of historical thinking advanced in it assumes that these
thinking processes allow students to build a disciplined
understanding of the past that is significant, rigorous,
explanatory and interpretative. Some scholars argue
that such historical understanding also matters
because it helps students gain a critical understanding
of the connections between past and present, social
and personal issues, and historical processes and
civic matters (Barton and Levstik 2004; Bermudez and
Jaramillo 2001; Carretero and Bermudez 2012; Seixas
2004). In this sense, historical understanding is
thought to provide a reflective basis for values such as
global awareness, pluralism, and respect for diversity,
independent thinking, and openness to controversial
issues.
Critical Pedagogy
Drawing upon scholarship in neo-Marxist philosophy,
social sciences, and the humanities, Critical Pedagogy
develops a reflective critique of the ways knowledge
is constructed and communicated within social,
cultural and political relationships that organize
practice. Freire (1970) coined the seminal distinction
between emancipatory and banking education,
based on which he and others (Brookfield 1987;
Freire and Faundez 1989; Giroux 1994; McLaren, 1994)
conceptualized the educational goal of fostering
critical consciousness. In doing so, these scholars
brought to the field of education the Frankfurt Schools
claim that the purpose of knowledge was to liberate
human beings from the circumstances that enslave
them (Horkheimer 1982, 244). Habermas (1971)
furthered this claim by arguing that the technical
interest in prediction and control is but one of three
legitimate interests. Knowledge he said may only
be driven by a hermeneutical interest in understanding
the meaning of human expressions and/or by an
emancipatory interest in transforming oppressive
realities. Critical Pedagogy thus points to two distinct
layers of critical inquiry. In one layer, the object of
analysis are the processes of knowledge production
and communication, which are assessed against
epistemological criteria of truth and considering the
conditions for respectful dialogue among participants.
Here, critical inquiry consists of deconstructing the
power relationships that frame knowledge, revealing
bias, hidden assumptions, propaganda and ideological
manipulation, and empowering students to construct
their own knowledge. In the second layer, the object
of critical inquiry is social relationships and practices
in themselves, which are examined against ethical
criteria such as justice and recognition. Here, critical
inquiry consists of revealing and explaining the deep
structural forces that regulate societies, seeking to
empower students to transform dehumanizing and
oppressive realities.
Moral Education
Since the late 1970s, research on moral education
has drawn on ethical philosophy, developmental
psychology, and constructivist pedagogy to show
that individuals can develop the capacity for moral
reflection and judgment, which becomes increasingly
inclusive, principled, and independent of the dictates
of established authorities (Gilligan 1982; Kohlberg
1984; Selman 2003). In this tradition, critical judgment
consists of an active process in which participants a)
recognize multiple moral dilemmas and contested
issues that cannot be resolved relying simply on
personal preferences, formed habits, and social
105

Table 1. Different Approaches to Critical Inquiry

Theoretical Tradition
Critical consists of
Purpose
Critical Thinking Movement
Meta-cognitive assessment of arguments and reasoning
Self-correction, monitoring quality

of thinking and knowledge
History Education
Disciplined sourcing, multi-causal

and contextualized explanations
Plausible accounts and explanations

of historical events and processes
Moral Education
Independent judgment that coordinates relevant perspectives
Independent belief and fair choices

of action
Critical Pedagogy
Deconstructing / revealing power relations and social structures
Human liberation and social transformation
Table 1 summarizes the different conceptions of critical

thinking emphasized by the four theoretical traditions.
However, as I attempt to show in the following
section, this seeming divergence of approaches can
be reconciled in a four-tool model that captures the
variety of intellectual processes and purposes that these
traditions define as critical, all of which are necessary
for sophisticated understanding in the social domain.
different situations, which is different from the notion

of skill, which focuses more narrowly on having (or
not) a cognitive trait. Research on thinking dispositions
has shown that the bottleneck in intelligent behavior is
not so much the lack of sophisticated skills, but the lack of
sharpened sensitivity or to detect the situations that call for
the use of the skills we have, the lack of inclination to invest
ourselves in the effort they require, and/or the lack of a
thinking culture that makes visible and sustains this kind of
performance (Perkins 2001). In this regard, my concept
of critical inquiry denotes an intellectual and social
performance that entails the interplay of awareness,
capacity, and commitment. This leads us to another
consideration. As Vygotsky made clear, psychological tools
are first socio-cultural tools (Vygotsky 1978; Wertsch 1997).
So are critical inquiry tools; they are created within
communities of practice, and we appropriate and
reconstruct them through processes of shared use as we
try to make sense of the world around us. The metaphor
of an inquiry tool is important because it recognizes
that culture, social contexts, and relationships shape
what and how we think. In sum, I use the metaphor of
inquiry tools to stress the transformative, performative,
and situated nature of critical inquiry.
Four Critical Inquiry Tools

Before dissecting my understanding of critical inquiry,
I would like to comment on the metaphor of an inquiry tool
on which I rely. Such a metaphor denotes an intellectual
device that can be used to process something raw in order
to transform it into an elaborated product. With the tools of
critical inquiry we can process experiences, beliefs and data,
and transform them into knowledge, understanding and
practice. The transformative feature of these tools stresses
that critical inquiry affords the means to recognize and work
through a number of intellectual and social challenges that
we confront on a regular basis, and particularly in situations
of conflict and controversy: competing perspectives,
uncertain claims, intricate interdependent causes and
consequences, invisible social forces, and the limits of
personal values and convictions. These challenges may raise
obstacles that lock us in the vices of obtuseness and refusal
of vision that Nussbaum speaks about (1990, 148). My claim
is that the four tools serve to help us perform different kinds
of critical inquiry with which we can recognize and resist
these impediments, and transform them into opportunities
and sources of responsible lucidity as we navigate the
bewildering complexities of our world.
Problem-Posing
The essence of critical thinking is to be outraged by outrageous
things and ask why.
(Kohn 2004, 6)
Problem-posing is the tool that we use to raise critical

questions that invite further inquiry about claims,
beliefs, and social practices that are commonly taken for
granted. Freire (1970) first proposed this concept to refer
to the capacity to interrogate the world, challenging
On a different note, the notion of tool focuses our

attention on performance, the actual use of the tool in
106
Angela Bermudez
Dossier
accepted truths, social conventions, alleged natural

orders, and hegemonic discourses. While banking education
he said positions the learner as a passive recipient
of knowledge that admits no discussion and conceals
key explanations for why things are they way they are,
problem-posing education engages the learner in dialogue
and reflection that co-construct knowledge, transform
meaning, and stimulate action upon reality.
psychological storms or murky clouds, and, in fact,

they can be important sources of understanding as they
heighten our awareness, redirect our attention, and
provide patterns of sensibility (Lipman 2003, 128).
Intellectual emotions and moral sentiments serve
various functions in problem-posing. For instance, Elgin
(1996) argues that emotions signal our encounter with
perplexing or troubling situations, they make things
stand out; they are a source of salience. They also define and
frame the problems we deem worthy of consideration and
focus our attention. Scheffler (1991) also considers that it is
intellectual emotions such as love of truth, repugnance
of distortion, openness to surprise and uncertainty that
allow us to experience wonder and curiosity. This is
also true of the host of moral sentiments (e.g. sorrow,
love, indignation, compassion, shame, fear, or hope)
that capture the state of our relationships with the
world and with others, and engage our thinking around
them (Damasio 2003; Nussbaum 2001). Listening to
emotions, problem-posing opens critical inquiry to realities
that are harder to access through simple analytic
reasoning. Speaking of emotions, it provides us with
an alternative language with which to experience and
express discomfort and engagement. As Nussbaum says,
In order to represent certain sorts of truths one must
represent emotions, and in order to communicate
certain truths one will have to write so as to arouse
the readers emotions (Nussbaum 1992, 210).
This tool helps us work through the impediments to

responsible lucidity posed by ideological mystification, and by
the ease with which we conform to habits and traditions.
If we were to think of a specific metaphor that captures
the nature and purpose of this tool, radar is the device that
comes to mind because it spots objects that would otherwise
remain hidden. Identifying weak arguments, intellectual
puzzles, moral dilemmas, and social controversies that
deserve careful examination, problem-posing aids us in that
vigilant effort that Nussbaum deems indispensable for
responsible lucidity (Nussbaum 1990, 148).
Problem-posing is a generative tool, the function of which
is to provoke us, to throw us off balance. As Lipman
says, inquiry begins when we feel the twinge of doubt
and puzzlement in the face of some aberration, some
discrepancy, something that defies being taken for
granted, captures our interest and demands our reflection
and investigation (Lipman 2003, 21). In the social domain,
critical inquiry involves both epistemological and ethical
questions. Epistemological questions lead us to a quest for
truth and meaning. The quest for truth is concerned with
knowledge and thinking that falls short in qualities such
as precision, coherence, consistency or evidence; or that
contains bias, distortions or unwarranted generalizations.
The quest for meaning is concerned with claims, beliefs
or practices that puzzle or unsettle us because they do
not seem to make sense. Ethical questions, on the other
hand, lead to a quest for fairness and welfare. They are
concerned with knowledge, social narratives, and social
practices that cause harm, injustice and oppression or
deprive others of recognition and due care.
This tool is fundamental in critical inquiry because

it makes knowledge purposeful and relevant. Critical
questions connect knowledge and practice through
cycles of praxis: Practical experience interrogates
existing knowledge, and further reflection sheds new
light on practice. In subjects like history, social studies,
or civic education, problem-posing connects past and
present (historical and current realities), and self and
society (personal and social experience), thus making
school learning significant to the student (Levstik 2000;
Yates and Youniss 1996).
In this way, this tool generates problems that we can

then process more systematically using the other tools.
Its power stems precisely from the immediacy that alerts
us to problematic issues which are often concealed.
Intuition and emotions play an important role in this
process (Thayer-Bacon 2000). Interestingly, emotions
are often regarded as obstacles that disrupt, confuse and
bias our thinking, making us prone to impulsiveness,
error, and distortion. However, as Lipman (2003) and
other scholars contend, emotions are not necessarily
Its contribution to forming critical citizens seems obvious.

Nussbaum (2006) stresses that education must cultivate
the freedom and capacity of the mind to engage critically
with tradition, and relates this goal with Rabin Tagores
call for living an examined life. In Nussbaums words,
this means a life that accepts no belief as authoritative
simply because it has been handed down by tradition or
become familiar through habit (Nussbaum 2006, 390).
In this sense, this tool also protects us from premature
intellectual and moral closures that impede thoughtful
107

and creative understanding and social transformation.

Overall, problem-posing cultivates the purposeful, sensitive,
sharp, and courageous spirit of a critical thinker.
the specific subject matter. In history, for example, the

evaluation of evidence that supports an account is based
on the interpretation of documents and testimonies from
the past. These must be carefully analyzed, corroborating
different sources, considering authorship and intended
audiences, and acknowledging the context of meaning
(Shemilt 1980; Stearns, Seixas and Wineburg 2000).
Reflective Skepticism
Inquiry is the struggle to believe once the beliefs we had previously
The examination of underlying assumptions: Critical inquiry

requires that we examine not only the claims about
which we have doubts, but also those that we take
for granted. These are often implicit assumptions of
which we are not aware, but which are the basis
of our thinking (Brookfield 1987; Ennis 1982; Paul 1990).
Theorists of critical pedagogy emphasize that many of
these assumptions are embedded in the social contexts
and cultures to which we belong, and thus are tied to
the interests we pursue in the world. For this reason,
they define the stances we adopt regarding any given
issue, and it easy to lose track of them, or to accept them
as unquestionable truths. Only through conscious and
deliberate reflection regarding the social discourses
in which such claims are embedded can we identify
these assumptions and understand their implications
(Brookfield 1987).
relied upon have been corroded and dissolved by doubt. It is doubt

that signals to us that we are in a problematic situation, and it is
inquiry that we engage in to get some orientation within the gloom.
(Lipman 2003, 254)
The tool of reflective skepticism serves us to process

questions about matters of truth and to guide our
engagement in methodic inquiry. As the Critical
Thinking Movement asserts, critical inquiry involves
processes of meta-cognitive reflection that monitor the
quality of our thinking, looking to rectify what is at fault
in its procedures and outcomes (Ennis 1996; Facione
1990; Siegel 1988). McPeck (1981) described critical
thinking as the suspension of assent, or the disposition
to interrogate, ponder, and hold back judgment until it
is warranted. However, critical inquiry actually involves
a tension between the pull of reasonable doubt and
the pull of careful analysis to resettle the possibility of
belief (Elbow 1986). On a different route, scholars in
critical pedagogy define reflective skepticism not so much
as concerned with logic or the coherence of arguments,
but rather with deconstructing the socio-cultural
and political dynamics of knowledge and thinking
(Brookfield 1987; Giroux 1994; McLaren 1994). Bringing
together the emphasis of different traditions, we see
that the tool of reflective skepticism is used to perform
three related intellectual operations that are essential to
critical inquiry: the methodic scrutiny of arguments and thinking
procedures, the examination of underlying assumptions, and the
disclosure and correction of distortions.
Revealing and correcting distortions: Reflective skepticism also

involves analysis of the distortions in knowledge that
result from unintended partiality, intended manipulation,
or from the asymmetries of power in the construction
and communication of knowledge. Such distortions may
appear as prejudices and bias, selective fragmentation,
dogmatism, propaganda, ideological mystification, or
representations that regard as natural practices what
are really a social construction. In this regard, critical
inquiry entails seeing through the spells cast by ideology
to legitimize social arrangements and practices (Parker
2003, 70).
The methodic scrutiny of arguments and thinking procedures:

For skepticism to be critical, it must be reflective and
judicious, i.e., grounded on a deliberate and careful
examination of knowledge claims and thinking processes
against explicit and consistent criteria. Formal logic
assess the validity of arguments in terms of their
structure, i.e., examining whether a conclusion follows
from the supporting premises. In turn, informal logic
assesses the soundness of arguments in terms of the
evidence that supports them and the reasonableness of
their claims (Ennis 1996; Facione 1990; Siegel 1988). In
particular disciplines, the scrutiny of arguments must
also rely on disciplined procedures that are adequate to
This tool is fundamental for critical inquiry both for

intellectual and social reasons. Probing and correcting
arguments, problem-solving strategies, or decisionmaking processes, it is a tool that protects against
impulsive, ill-supported or uninformed solutions. This
is especially relevant in the social domain, considering
the expectation that democratic governance rests on
informed and thoughtful citizens that are engaged in
public affairs. As Lipman (2003) asserts,
There are great and powerful forces ranged against the
individual in every society the political, the military,
and the economic are the most obvious examples-
108
Angela Bermudez
Dossier
Multi-perspectivity is the tool that we use to identify,

reconstruct, and coordinate different perspectives that
are relevant for understanding a topic or problem.
It operates on interpersonal, social, and historical
issues, identifying different viewpoints that make up
moral dilemmas, social controversies, and multi-vocal
representations of historical processes. Since the object
of inquiry in the social domain consists of beliefs,
practices, and experiences of human beings, a critical
understanding entails recognizing the perspectives they
embody, and reconstructing them in their own context
of meaning. When confronted with different views that
are often contested or strange, critical inquiry strives
to understand, instead of dismissing, excluding or
distorting. In this way, multi-perspectivity helps us to
work through the impediments to responsible lucidity
that result from different x-centrisms (ego-, ethno-,
gender, class, present). An orchestra director that
distinguishes between instruments, gives the right
place to each, and brings their diverse voices together
in a polyphonic composition, offers a good metaphor for
this tool.
and their aim is often to get us to acquiesce without
reflection in the views they want us to have. The armor

of skepticism that critical thinking can provide is not
an impervious one as far as any given individual is
concerned, but in a populace so armored it could be

decisive. (Lipman 2003, 47)
Reflective skepticism matters because it protects us from

dogmatism. It is at the same time the basis for independent
thinking and for intellectual accountability, two qualities
that are vital for democratic citizens who, according to
Nussbaum (2001), can think for themselves rather than
simply deferring to authority, and can reason together
about their choices rather than just trading claims and
counter-claims (Nussbaum 2001, 388). We are less likely
to be manipulated and misled by others, but it also helps
us to resist the temptation of imposing our ideas on others.
This tool is also important because it makes possible
what I will call critical trust. Trust is a revered civic
virtue, and, indeed, a necessary one. It serves as social
glue, supporting negotiation and compromise, and
it allows collective work. Nevertheless, the task of a
truly democratic citizen is to be vigilant, to scrutinize
and monitor political actors, institutions, and social
practices. This requires that we learn to balance trust
and skepticism, as well the need to belong and be loyal
and the need to be authentic and critical. Critical trust
protects us both from nave trust and from cynicism.
The tool of multi-perspectivity performs three core

intellectual operations: perspective-taking, perspectivecoordination, and contextualization. Perspectivetaking affords the initial acknowledgment of different
perspectives that must be considered. It requires that we
step back from our own positions to recognize others and
how they, in their position, see and experience things.
By taking other perspectives, we also gain a perspective
on our own. As a result, we come to understand that our
perspective is one point of view, and we gain access to
other perspectives that we did not have before.
In sum, reflective skepticism helps us to work through the

impediments to responsible lucidity that derive from our
discomfort with doubt and uncertainty, the careless urge
for expedience, or the ease of dogma. A sharp scalpel, a
microscope and a sieve are probably good metaphors to
represent a tool that helps us in the intense scrutiny of
particulars (Nussbaum 1990, 148), by dissecting claims,
looking beyond what is readily apparent, and filtering
what is credible from what is not. Overall, reflective
skepticism nurtures the judicious spirit of a person
that pauses to ponder and examine issues more deeply,
following methodic procedures of inquiry.
There are different approaches to perspective-taking.

Scholars of historical understanding characterize
perspective-taking strictly as hypothetical imagination
of others in the past, based on the rigorous analysis
of evidence regarding their beliefs, practices and
circumstances. They argue against the idea that
historical empathy requires feeling with the other,
wary that this may lead to projecting referents from the
present (Dickinson, Lee and Rogers 1984).
Multi-Perspectivity
Research on moral development distinguishes two

different orientations of perspective-taking: role-taking
and empathetic imagination. In role-taking the person
displaces itself to different positions aiming to see an
issue from different vantage points. Psychologically,
this involves taking distance from (abstracting) the
particulars of oneself and the others in conflict, in
A social perspective is a standpoint that implies certain ways of

being sensitive to particular aspects of social life, meanings, and
interactions, and perhaps less sensitive to others. It is a form of
attentiveness that brings some things into view while possibly
obscuring others.
(Young 1997, 394)
109

order to gain a third-person view that is increasingly

inclusive, impartial and generalized. Kohlberg (1984)
claimed that role-taking is necessary for a mature
understanding and fair resolution of conflicts that
emerge when competing claims to rights and obligations
clash. In contrast, empathetic imagination rests on
connecting deeply with the other and the particulars of
their situation, in order to recognize their experience in
their own terms. Gilligan (1982) claimed that this form
of perspective-taking involves emotional connection
and closeness rather than detachment and impartiality,
and is necessary for a mature understanding and caring
resolution of conflicts that emerge when competing
needs and responsibilities fracture relationships,
mutual recognition, and responsiveness. As Gilligan
and Attanucci (1988) clarify, both orientations are
necessary because they address different experiences of
vulnerability: that of inequality and oppression, and that
of detachment and abandonment. Identity and emotions
also play an important role in our use of this tool. When
we step back from our positions to recognize others we
are often displaced from our comfort zones and pushed
to interrogate what we take for granted. However, as we
learn to reflect on these emotions, they become sources of
new knowledge and deeper understanding.
is stressed in the different theoretical traditions. For

example, feminist perspectives on moral development
claim that authentic responsiveness to the needs of
others requires immersion into the particulars of the
situation of others (Gilligan 1982; Martin 1992). Research
on historical understanding has shown that when
perspectives are not well reconstructed as expressions
of particular historical contexts, they are distorted by
presentism and ethnocentrism (Bermudez and Jaramillo
2001; Dickinson, Lee and Rogers 1984). In turn, critical
theorists argue that the statement of universals and
essences abstracted from context is often a powerful
means of imposing hegemonic views to control and
contain difference (Giroux 1994).
So, why is this tool of importance for critical inquiry? Paul
(1990), a leading figure of the Critical Thinking Movement,
makes an important distinction between weak- and strongsense critical thinking. Lacking perspective-taking, the
former only examines assumptions and arguments in
which the person has no personal investment. According to
Paul, this thinking is disciplined to serve the interests of a
particular individual or group (Paul 1990, 2). In contrast,
he says, when critical thinking is disciplined to take into
account the interests of diverse persons and groups, we
call it fair-minded or strong-sense critical thinking (Paul
1990, 2). This distinction has important implications for
how we argue for the inclusion of different perspectives.
For instance, Siegel (1995) has argued that the reasons for
doing so are moral but not epistemic, i.e., inclusion is fair but
it is not relevant when evaluating epistemic worthiness
or defectiveness. However, others contend the opposite.
If dialogue within epistemic communities is a central
procedure for evaluating truth, multi-perspectivity is
epistemologically necessary (Howe 1997; Thayer-Bacon
2000; Burbules and Berk 1999). In addition, particularly
in the social domain, the inclusion of diverse perspectives
is necessary to render a comprehensive picture of events,
one that represents the complexity of social phenomena,
and preserves meaning and authenticity. If relevant
perspectives are not considered and well represented, the
resulting judgments and accounts may not only be unfair,
but biased and flawed as well.
Perspective-coordination
entails
putting
different
perspectives in relation to one another and integrating
them in more comprehensive judgments or accounts.
This coordination may manifest itself as an autonomous
judgment that asserts a personal stance after having
considered other perspectives, as a negotiated
resolution of conflict based on mutual give-and-take,
or as a synthesis that maps areas of disagreement and
overlapping consensus around a controversial issue. In
historical thinking, it shows up in multi-vocal accounts
that recognize different experiences and integrate
perspectives that are normally excluded, marginalized
or distorted.
A third intellectual operation performed with the tool
of multi-perspectivity is the contextualization of perspectives.
Lipman makes an important distinction between errors
that violate truth and errors that violate meaning.
Strictly speaking, he says the truth-preserving
process is inference and the meaning-preserving process
is translation (2003, 175). Such translation implies that
perspectives must be reconstructed within the context
in which they make sense, to guarantee that they are
represented without distortion or loss of meaning when
moving across personal experiences, cultural milieus, or
historical settings and times. This sensitivity to context
The tool of multi-perspectivity also contributes several

qualities to critical inquiry that are necessary to develop
a democratic culture that permeates civic engagement
beyond restricted electoral politics (Bermudez 2012b). Civic
engagement requires a sense of personal responsibility for
the wellbeing of others, as well as concern for the common
good. The first rests on our capacity to understand how
others experience our choices and actions, while the
110
Angela Bermudez
Dossier
latter results from the coordination of the different

perspectives and interests that we encounter. The notion
of public rests on the affirmation of respect for diversity
through reflective dialogue, and there is no dialogue
without multi-perspectivity. This is the avenue for
developing the basic common grounds needed to sustain
a pluralistic culture. Furthermore, citizen engagement
in the deliberation of controversial issues is also crucial
if we want to sustain an authentically democratic culture
in which political expediency does not silence dissent or
exclude alternative voices. The ways in which citizens
work together and deal with their differences to achieve
collective goals is at the basis of this process. McIntosh
and Youniss (2010) articulate this clearly. Although
expanding the number of ones allies to achieve political
goals by majority force sometimes works, that approach
is often not possible nor even desirable in democratic
societies. Rather, they say, practical necessity, as well
as the principles of democratic participation, requires
interest groups to deliberate, and to present their own
interests, listen to others interests, and negotiate a
mutually agreeable decision (McIntosh and Youniss
2010, 33). Only through this sort of reasoned dialogue,
grounded both on the commitment to understand others
and to assert oneself, is it possible to construct solutions
that are infused with a perspective of the common good
but that also ensure respect for the individual and for
minority voices.
research on adult development (1994) describes this

process as one in which we come to have a context instead
of be had by it. Overall, this critical-thinking tool fosters
the fair-minded, curious, nuanced, and pluralist spirit of
a critical thinker that is open to recognizing alternative
ways of understanding and being in the world, while
engaging with diversity constructively.
Systemic Thinking
How people act and live is shaped by the circumstances in which
they find themselves. These circumstances can be changed, their
limits attenuated through action.
(West 2004, 19)
The tool of systemic thinking serves to deconstruct and

reconstruct the larger and complex systems and
processes in which people act and particular events take
place. According to Lipman (2003), thinking is a process
of finding or making connections and disjunctions, as
the meaning of any one thing lies in the relationships
it has, and does not have, with other things. Thus,
he concludes, each relationship, when discovered or
invented, is a meaning, and great orders or systems
of relationships constitute great bodies of meaning
(Lipman 2003, 23).
Mapping elements, relationships and transformations,
this tool builds critical accounts and explanations
that show that interpersonal, social and historical
phenomena are multidimensional, interdependent,
dynamic, socially constructed, and grounded on
underlying social structures. In this way, systemic
thinking helps us to confront the impediments to
responsible lucidity that result from short-sightedness,
fragmentation and naturalization which obscure the
causes and consequences of social phenomena, and
our possibilities to act upon them. The optical zoom in
a camera is a good metaphor to represent how this tool
moves back and forth from wider visions that capture
connecting relationships across space and over time, to
fine-grained visions that capture the detail and texture
of particular sections and episodes.
A recurrent use of multi-perspectivity develops a pluralist

and deliberative stance that may help to confront
disagreement and conflict without resorting to
dogmatism, blind faith in leadership, or violence. For
example, research shows that low levels of perspectivecoordination contributes to immature and unhealthy
management of interpersonal conflict in which othertransforming or self-transforming strategies require that
only one party accommodates to the other (Selman
2003). But more generally, violence rests on imposing
ideas and courses of action that admit no pondering of
discrepant perspectives, shattering the possibility of
fair and sustainable solutions. As Nussbaum asserts, a
lack of empathetic imagining of the other leads to an
impoverishment of mind that nourishes the politics
of obtuseness and hatred (Nussbaum 2006, 394).
Using this tool, a critical thinker performs four key

intellectual operations that I have characterized as
nesting, networking, threading, and unearthing. Nesting consists
of fitting apparently discrete phenomena into wider
ecologies that contain and sustain them. It works by
searching for and drawing bigger pictures that reveal
the scope and nature of what seemed to be isolated
Last but not least, multi-perspectivity supports the

development of social awareness and agency. Through
perspective-taking, coordination, and contextualization,
one progressively emerges from the contexts in which one
is embedded and recognizes them as realities which
one can reflect on, act upon and transform. Kegans
111

Systemic thinking is fundamental to critical inquiry in the

social domain. Together with multi-perspectivity it is the
tool necessary to explain historical processes, social
conflict, and personal experiences. In these domains,
where universal, imperative and predictive laws have
only a limited use, explanation often rests on the
reconstruction of the causal process and mechanism that
describe how things came to be in a particular instance
or how things work in a particular context. Zooming
in and out, systemic thinking can identify analogies and
patterns across time and space, but without losing
sight of the particularity of each manifestation. This
qualitative form of explanation strives to maintain the
complexity of phenomena, and it does so by attending
to diversity, particularity, and situatedness in context.
This contrasts with other types of explanation that
seek to reduce the complexity of phenomena, focusing
on basic constituents and regularities and abstracting
them from context to identify general principles
and laws. Systemic thinking is the tool that provides the
explanation of complexity.
elements. In this manner, systemic thinking zooms in

and out, from macro to micro, from global to local, and
from societal to individual levels of analysis. It helps to
recognize both the place that something occupies within
a larger system, and the peculiarity of each place.
Networking consists of an iterative process that
disentangles and recomposes the totality and complexity
of social phenomena. Through analysis, it dissects the
varied elements that make it up (e.g. events, people,
practices, beliefs, institutions, settings) and identifies
the multiple relationships that connect them (e.g.
causation, proximity, hierarchy, inclusion, exclusion,
alliance, tension, resistance). Through synthesis, it
reconstructs the network of related elements that reveals
the dynamic mechanisms and interdependence of the
social, political, economic, psychological, cultural, and
geographical dimensions of a phenomenon. In history,
social studies and civic education, this operation allows
the explanation of causes and consequences of events,
of the intricate interplay between structural forces
and human agency (Dickinson, Lee and Rogers 1984;
Bermudez and Jaramillo 2001).
This tool also informs our sense of agency. Relating past,

present, and future, and situating personal experience
with social contexts, systemic thinking gives the
individual a sense of connectedness and transcendence,
and it reveals that personal struggles reflect societal
problems that can be collectively addressed. This is
important to support the development of a political
identity, collaboration with others, and the investment
of oneself in building a collective future (Hart and
Gullan 2010; Yates and Youniss 1996). Furthermore,
systemic thinking makes possible the fundamental
understanding that current social arrangements are
but one possibility, open to transformation, reversal, or
radical redefinition. It is on this realization that our sense
of agency rests. Tracing historical processes of change,
this tool denaturalizes social phenomena, showing that
they are not natural and immutable states but socially
constructed realities that we can act upon. Understanding
human agency in socio-historical processes also requires
that we understand efficacy or the actual possibility of
effecting change (Kahne and Westheimer 2004). This,
in turn, requires that we understand the intricate
interplay between larger structural forces and human
agency (Bourdieu 1998; Thompson 1978). Here again,
systemic thinking helps as it reconstructs the networks
of elements and relationships in which human action
takes place, mapping tensions, obstacles, resistance
to change, and the dynamics of organized collective
action (e.g. leadership, collaboration, confrontation,
and resistance).
Threading consists of tracing the different manifestations

of phenomena over time and linking them in accounts
or explanations that show both the continuity of
features of the past that remain in the present and the
transformation of features of the present that have not
always been the same. In this way, systemic thinking
moves fluidly between past, present, and future. It
represents processes that characterize phenomena at
various points in their development and reveals different
dynamics of change (e.g., progress, regression, reform,
revolution, gradual change, crisis, cyclic repetition,
assimilation, and marginal accommodation).
Unearthing refers to the process of excavating and exposing
(making visible) the deep, widespread and durable
social structures that underlie superficial, episodic, or
particular manifestations of social phenomena. This
resembles what Freire (1970) called structural perception.
He characterized it as the revelation that entrenched
social patterns such as poverty, inequality, exclusion,
impunity and corruption result from the existence of
underlying structures that, while not readily visible,
shape and constrain peoples practices and beliefs, as
well as the organization of social relationships. They
also generate deep-seated interests and forces that
propel or stand in the way of social transformation,
and thus help to explain why things change or remain
as they do.
112
Angela Bermudez
Dossier
To conclude, systemic thinking is crucial for a critical

understanding of societal and historical responsibility
that complements the sense of personal responsibility
afforded by multi-perspectivity. This tool allows us to map
the different consequences that social organizations,
dynamics, and practices have in the lives of different
people. It integrates short- and long-term effects, local
and global impacts, and intended and unintended
consequences. It also helps us to recognize the oftenunequal distribution of costs and benefits in the ways
in which societies organize and resolve a conflict.
These operations are the psychological basis of the
emancipatory interest of the social sciences described
philosophically by Habermas (1971). Privilege and
oppression are invisible when conflicts are framed in
individualistic and intentional terms, but they emerge
in a wider systemic framing. As Parker says, critical civic
engagement entails the capacity to identify a public
problem, imagine a better world and clarify just where,
how and at whose expense are we coming up short
(Parker 2003, 113). Along these lines, Cherryholmes (1980)
analyzes civic education that seeks to prepare students
to grapple with societys problems but fails to engage
them in a critical examination of the solutions for which
they and others strive. In his view, this results from
nave positions that ignore the relationship between
knowledge, action, and power, thus hindering students
capacity to reflect on which problems are more or less
worth solving, according to whom, for what purposes,
in whose favor, and at whose expense. Overall, systemic
thinking embodies the ecological spirit of a critical thinker
that strives to maintain the big picture and not lose sight
of diversity, complexity, and transformation.
The four theoretical traditions that inform my definition

of the tools of critical inquiry partake in longstanding
debates regarding the nature of our knowledge and the
claims we can make about the extent to which such
knowledge represents what we take to be reality. Some in
the Critical Thinking Movement favor a positivist claim
that objective knowledge is possible if the product of our
thinking mirrors external reality accurately. In turn,
some scholars of Critical Pedagogy tend to agree with
postmodern relativist claims which hold that reality is
itself a social construction and that there is no such thing
as a real world outside of our intellectual constructs.
But there is no single or conclusive position regarding
these questions in any of these theoretical traditions,
and we would be guilty of gross oversimplification if we
failed to recognize that. A review of these discussions is
beyond the scope of this paper, but I will delineate the
position that I take as the foundation of my model of
critical inquiry, and explain how that position reconciles
particular approaches within each of the traditions
which I draw upon.
The position I assume has been conceptualized by
Maxwell (2012) as critical realism, and holds that while all
knowledge is theory-laden; this does not contradict
the existence of a real world to which this knowledge
refers (Maxwell 2012, vii). In his discussion with
both the positivism that dominates quantitative
research and the relativism that dominates qualitative
research, Maxwell explains the importance of
distinguishing between ontology (the nature of reality)
and epistemology (the nature of our knowledge). This
distinction allows critical realism to combine a realist
ontology (the belief that there is a real world that
exists independently of our beliefs and constructions)
with a constructivist epistemology (the belief that
our knowledge of this world is inevitably our own
construction, created from a specific vantage point,
and that there is no possibility of our achieving a purely
objective account that is independent of all particular
perspectives) (Maxwell 2012, vii). He illustrates this
with a poignant example: most of us believe that
global warming is occurring, with potentially serious
consequences for humanity, regardless of how many
people deny it (Maxwell 2012, vii).
The characterization of four distinct tools underscores

that problem-posing, reflective skepticism, multi-perspectivity and
systemic thinking serve to perform different but necessary
forms of critical inquiry. Table 2 synthesizes and contrasts
the driving questions, the intellectual processes, and
the purposes that define each tool.
My argument so far has been that the four tools can be
distinguished from one another because they perform
different kinds of critical inquiry. That is, they raise
different kinds of questions to guide our critical
explorations, they engage us in different kinds of
intellectual operations, and they serve different purposes.
Now, before concluding, I want to step back from these
differences to consider the ways in which the four
tools share a common ontological and epistemological
foundation that makes them converge in a coherent
practice and process.
Realist ontology postulates that there is a real world out

there that we can approach, interrogate, and strive to
explain. The aim of critical inquiry is precisely to examine
and reconstruct real phenomena such as the experiences,
perspectives and practices of people, or the causal
mechanisms and social dynamics in processes of change.
113

Table 2. Four Critical Inquiry Tools
TOOL
Problem-posing
Driving questions
Why does this matter? What

does this mean? Does this
make sense? How is this
possible? What is missing
here? Is this fair? Who does
this serve and harm? Could it
be different?
Intellectual processes
What does the tool do?

Recognizes intellectual puzzles,
moral dilemmas, and social
controversies; Raises questions that
invite further inquiry.
Core operations:
> Epistemic questions about truth

and meaning
> Ethical questions about fairness
and welfare
Meta-cognitive self-corrective tool;
Reflective
skepticism
Is this statement accurate?

Is the data relevant? Is this
explanation plausible? Is
this account credible? Is this
claim warranted? Is there
evidence to support it? Does
the story hang together?
Processes questions of truth;

Guides methodic inquiry;
Integrates reasonable disbelief < >

cautious analysis to resettle belief.
Core operations:
>Scrutinizes arguments and

thinking
>Examines underlying assumptions

>Reveals and corrects distortions
epistemic and social purposes

Why does it matter?
Confronts ideological
mystifications; Challenges
conformity with habits and
tradition; Cultivates purposeful,
relevant and significant
knowledge; Connects past-present,
self-society; Nurtures capacity for
living an examined life; Opens
cycles of transformative praxis;
Protects from intellectual and
moral closure.
Confronts discomfort with
uncertainty, urge for careless
expedience, and ease of
dogmatism; Detects and solves
flaws in arguments, thinking
process, problem-solving
strategies, or decision-making
processes;
Cultivates independent thinking

and critical trust;
Protects against impulsive,
ill-supported or uninformed
resolution of problems;
Protects from dogmatism.
Multi-perspectivity
How did different actors

experience these events?
Who has a stake in this
problem and its solution?
What are other ways to think
about this issue? How do
others experience my ideas/
choices?
Identifies, reconstructs and

coordinates perspectives;
Preserves meaning and authenticity;

Reconstructs moral dilemmas,
social controversies, and multi-vocal
accounts of historical processes.
Core operations:
>Perspective taking
>Perspective coordination
>Contextualization of perspectives
Confronts the impediments posed

by x-centrisms (ego, ethno, gender,
class,present); Cultivates pluralist
and deliberative stance;
Cultivates sense of personal
responsibility; Cultivates tolerance
through reflective dialogue;
Cultivates social awareness
and sense of agency; Renders
comprehensive and fair-minded
explanations and accounts.
Deconstructs/reconstructs systems
and processes;
Represents totality and complexity
of phenomena;
Reconstructs causal processes and
mechanisms;
Systemic thinking
Why did this happen? How

does this work? Has it always
been the same? How may it
change? How does this fit in
the bigger picture? What are
the impacts? Who gains and
who loses?
Coordinates structural forces and

human agency;
Explains different dynamics of
change.
Core operations:
>Nesting - fits phenomena into

wider ecologies
>Networking - disentangles and

recomposes elements-relationships
>Threading - traces change and
continuity over time
>Unearthing - exposes underlying

social structures
114
Confronts short sightedness,

fragmentation and naturalization
of social phenomena;
Cultivates a sense of connectedness

and transcendence;
Cultivates sense of agency and
efficacy;
Cultivates understanding
of societal and historical
responsibility; Recognizes unequal
distribution of costs and benefits in
conflict resolution.
Angela Bermudez
Dossier
All of these exist in the world, independently of

whether we know it or of how we represent them.
Through critical inquiry, we strive to grasp these
phenomena, developing models and interpretations
to guide our understanding of them and to orient our
action upon them. This assumption is essential to
the role we claim that critical inquiry should have in
education. Advocating critical inquiry only makes sense
if we believe that the knowledge and understanding we
construct through it has, or can have, consequences
in reality. Continuing with his example, Maxwell
reminds us, Most of us think that changing peoples
understanding of the causes of global warming can help
to reduce our production of greenhouse gases and thus
mitigate the rise in temperature (Maxwell 2012, viii).
Along these lines, I would say that there is no reason to
foster critical inquiry if there is no reality which we can
act upon. The claim that each critical inquiry tool serves
particular purposes assumes that there is in fact a world
out there that we can transform and make better.
structures of justice in our judgment and the structures

of justice that we encounter in our everyday lives.
Moral judgments are more stable when they are more
inclusive, as the result of an increasing coordination of
perspectives, yet there is no end-point to the process,
just as there is no conclusive moral judgment involved.
Good as they may be, all judgments must remain open
to challenge, and they may be thrown off balance if new
claims emerge that have not been considered.
Another central claim of a constructivist epistemology
is that knowledge is always constructed from particular
standpoints. This resonates in several ways with the
conception of critical inquiry proposed in this paper. One
manifestation of these standpoints is the fact that our
knowledge is defined by the questions we ask, and the
questions we ask are informed by the experiences and
interests we have in the world we live in. This is the core
of problem-posing. Critical inquiry begins when we raise
questions that identify intellectual and moral problems
in what is normally taken for granted. Using this tool
we reveal implicit standpoints and their implications,
or we suggest alternative standpoints to be considered
as our questions open the path for new explorations. In
turn, the tool of multi-perspectivity serves to understand
the multiple standpoints, reconstructing their claims
in their own contexts of meaning, and mapping
possible areas of overlapping consensus as well as areas
of irreducible difference. This tool is fundamental for
critical inquiry because difference and diversity are
intrinsic to relationships, societies and cultures. On this
issue, my characterization of multi-perspectivity resonates
with what Rosenau (1992) describes as the postmodern
search for diversity rather than unity, difference rather
than synthesis, complexity rather than simplification
(1992, 8, cited by Maxwell 2012, 66).
As for constructivist epistemology, a central claim is

that all knowledge is partial, incomplete and fallible
(Maxwell 2012, 5). It is precisely for that reason that it
must be critically examined, aiming to correct logical
flaws, biases and distortions. Reflective skepticism is
the tool that we use to recognize and deal with the
uncertainty and shortcomings of claims that are
often asserted as indisputable truths. In this sense,
critical inquiry is an ongoing process of improvement
of knowledge in which we construct increasingly
reasonable claims that bring us closer to that reality we
seek to understand. Holding this position, however,
does not imply any expectation that such claims will
come to be definitive and objective depictions that mirror
the external world exactly. In fact, this logic underlies
constructivist psychology and pedagogy, according to
which individuals can develop their cognitive capacity to
produce an increasingly stable understanding.
Last, but not least, constructivist epistemology also

asserts that because people are located in unequal social
systems, their multiple perspectives do not partake on
equal terms in the processes of knowledge construction
(and learning). In this regard, it is the tool of systemic
thinking that helps us to reconstruct the all-encompassing
yet invisible social forces that define and organize the
positions from which different actors construct and
express their experiences and perspectives. This idea
that our thinking and understanding is embedded in
social relationships resonates with another aspect of
my conception of critical inquiry that I have elaborated
elsewhere (Bermudez 2012a and 2014). Critical inquiry
involves the whole person; it not only mobilizes our
thinking, but also our identities and emotions. We
Piaget (1957) explained the mechanisms of assimilation

and accommodation that drive this process, and his
theory effectively challenged both the idealist and
empiricist conceptions that dominated contemporary
theories of teaching and learning. In a Piagetian
framework, knowledge is more stable when there is less
conflict or dissonance between the claims we make and
the portions of the world to which they refer. Building
on this perspective, Kohlberg (1984) claimed that the
principle of justice was at the same time a cognitive
structure and a structure in social relationships; and that
moral development involved an interplay between the
115

rarely think in isolation, because we are, essentially,

thinkers-in-relation-to-others. This is most evident
in the fact that the conversations that develop around
critical inquiry are largely driven by discursive processes
of affirmation, recognition, contestation and resistance
amongst participants. If we really want to engage
students in critical inquiry, we must consider how
their cultural, social, and interpersonal relationships
motivate and bear the consequences of critical inquiry.
2. Barton, Keith and Linda Levstik. 2004. Teaching History for

the Common Good. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Bermudez, Angela. 2012a. The Discursive Negotiation
of Cultural Narratives and Social Identities in Learning
History. In History Teaching and National Identities. International
Review of History Education, Vol. 5, eds. Mario Carretero,
Mikel Asensio and Mara Rodrguez-Moneo. Charlotte:
Information Age Publishers, 203-219.
4. Bermudez, Angela. 2012b. Youth Civic Engagement:
Decline or Transformation? A Critical Review. Journal of
Moral Education 41, n 4: 529-542.
5. Bermudez, Angela. 2014. Integrating Cognitive and Discursive
Approaches in the Analysis of Critical Reflection within Relational
and Socio-Cultural Contexts. SAGE Cases in Methodology.
London: SAGE Publications. Online.
6. Bermudez, Angela and Rosario Jaramillo. 2001.
Development of historical explanations in children,
adolescents and adults. In Rising Standards in History
Instruction-International Review of History Education, eds. A.
Dickinson and P. Lee. London: Woburn Press, 146-167.
7. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. Practical Reason: On the Theory of
Action. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
8. Brookfield, Stephen. 1987. Developing critical thinkers.
Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and
acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
9. Burbules, Nicholas and Rupert Berk. 1999. Critical
Thinking
and
Critical
Pedagogy:
Relations,
Differences, and Limits. In Critical Theories in Education,
eds. Thomas Popkewitz and Lynn Fendler. New York:
Routledge, 45-65.
10. Carretero, Mario and Angela Bermudez. 2012.
Constructing histories. In Handbook of Sociocultural Research,
eds. Jaan Valsiner and Alberto Rosa. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 625-646.
11. Carretero, Mario and James F. Voss. 1994. Cognitive and
Instructional Processes in History and the Social Sciences. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Cherryholmes, Cleo. 1980. Social Knowledge and
Citizenship Education: Two Views of Truth and
Criticism. Curriculum Inquiry 10: 115-141.
13. Damasio, Antonio. 2003. Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and
the Feeling Brain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
14. Dewey, John. 1933. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation
of Reflective Thinking to the Educational Process. New York: D.C.
Health & Company.
15. Dickinson, A. K, P. J. Lee and P. Rogers. 1984. Learning
Conclusion
Teachers are in a privileged position to foster the
responsible
lucidity
that
Martha
Nussbaum
characterizes as our highest and hardest task, the ethical
task of people who are trying to live well (Nussbaum
1990, 148). Compared to other social institutions like
the family, the workplace, the church, or the military,
a distinctive and legitimate mission of schools is to
teach students to interrogate and engage thoughtfully
with the world they live in, a world of bewildering
complexities. However, this requires that students
learn to grapple with social issues and conflicts in their
full complexity, and this, in turn, demands a pedagogy
that makes different forms of critical thinking visible.
My goal in this paper has been to identify and
characterize four tools for critical inquiry that appear
recurrently in four bodies of literature. Problem-posing,
reflective skepticism, multi-perspectivity and systemic thinking
represent distinguishable facets of critical inquiry in
the social domain that afford a better understanding
of social, historical and interpersonal issues. Students
learn to use these tools with increasing sophistication
(Bermudez 2014), and such development should be the
goal of explicit pedagogical interventions. Limitations of
space prevent me from discussing different pedagogical
uses of these tools in the classroom. Nonetheless, I
have explained the core operations of each tool and
the epistemic and social purposes they serve, hoping
that a deeper understanding of their nature and
potential will help educators to design curriculum, plan
teaching activities, observe and reflect about students
performance, and determine assessment criteria.
History. London: Heinemann Educational.

16. Duckworth, Eleanor. 2006. The Having of Wonderful Ideas:
And Other Essays on Teaching and Learning. New York: Teachers
College Press.
17. Elbow, Peter. 1986. Methodological Doubting and
Believing: Contraries in Inquiry. In Embracing Contraries:
References
1. Barber, Benjamin. 1989. Public Talk and Civic Action:
Education for Participation in a Strong Democracy. Social
Education 53, n 6: 355-370.
116
Angela Bermudez
Dossier
Explorations in Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford

18. Elgin, Catherine. 1996. Considered Judgment. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
19. Ennis, Robert H. 1962. A Concept of Critical Thinking.
Harvard Educational Review 32, n 1: 81-111.
20. Ennis, Robert H. 1982. Identifying Implicit Assumptions.
Synthese 51, n 1: 61-86.
21. Ennis, Robert. 1990. The Extent to which Critical
Thinking is Subject-Specific: Further Clarification.
Educational Researcher 19, n 4: 13-16.
22. Ennis, Robert H. 1996. Critical Thinking. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hall.
23. Facione, Peter A. 1990. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert
Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction.
Research Findings and Recommendations. Millbrae: The
California Academic Press.
24. Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York:
Herder & Herder.
25. Freire, Paulo and Antonio Faundez. 1989. Learning to
Question: A Pedagogy of Liberation. New York: Continuum.
26. Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
27. Gilligan, Carol and Jane Attanucci. 1988. Two Moral
Orientations. En Mapping the Moral Domain, eds. Carol
Gilligan, Jane V. Ward, Jill McLean Taylor and Betty
Bardige. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 201-224.
28. Giroux, Henry A. 1994. Toward a Pedagogy of Critical
Thinking. In Re-Thinking Reason. New Perspectives in Critical
Thinking, ed. Kerry Walters. Albany: SUNY Press, 199-204.
29. Glaser, Edward M. 1985. Critical Thinking: Educating for
Responsible Citizenship in a Democracy. Education for Responsible
Citizenship in a Democracy National Forum 65, n 1: 24-27.
30. Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson. 2004. Why
Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
31. Habermas, Jrgen. 1971. Knowledge and Human Interests.
Boston: Beacon Press.
32. Hart, Daniel and Rebecca L. Gullan. 2010. The Sources
of Adolescent Activism: Historical and Contemporary
Findings. In Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in
Youth, eds. Lonnie R. Sherrod, Judith Torney-Purta and
Constance A. Flanagan. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons,
67-90.
33. Hess, Diana. 2004. Discussion in Social Studies: Is it
Worth the Trouble? Social Education 68, n 2: 151-157.
34. Horkheimer, Max. 1982. Critical Theory. New York:
Seabury Press.
35. Howe, Kenneth R. 1997. What (Epistemic) Benefit
Inclusion? Philosophy of Education Archive 89-96.
36. Kahne, Joseph and Joel Westheimer. 2004. The Limits
of Efficacy: Educating Citizens for a Democratic Society.
In Social Studies for a New Millenium: Re-Envisioning Civic

Education for a Changing World, eds. J. Giarelli and B. Rubin.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Kegan, Robert. 1994. In Over our Heads: The Mental Demands of
Modern Life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
38. Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1984. The Psychology of Moral
Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages. San
Francisco: Harper & Row.
39. Kohn, Alfie. 2004. Challenging Studentsand How to
Have More of Them. Phi Delta Kappan 86, n 3: 184-194.
40. Levine, Peter. 2007. The Future of Democracy: Developing the
Next Generation of American Citizens. Lebanon: University
Press of New England.
41. Levstik, Linda. 2000. Articulating the Silences:
Teachers and Adolescents Conceptions of Historical
Significance. In Knowing, Teaching and Learning History:
National and International Perspectives, eds. Peter N. Stearns,
Peter Seixas and Sam Wineburg. New York: New York
42. Lipman, Matthew. 2003. Thinking in Education. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
43. Martin, J. 1992. Critical Thinking for a Humane World.
In The Generalizability of Critical Thinking: Multiple Perspectives
on an Educational Ideal, ed. Stephen P. Norris. New York:
Teachers College Press, 163-180.
44. Maxwell, Joseph A. 2012. A Realist Approach for Qualitative
Research. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
45. McIntosh, Hugh and James Youniss. 2010. Toward a
Political Theory of Political Socialization of Youth. In
Handbook of Research in Civic Engagement in Youth, eds. Lonnie
R. Sherrod, Judith Torney-Purta and Constance A.
Flanagan. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 23-41.
46. McLaren, Peter L. 1994. Foreword: Critical Thinking as
a Political Project. In Re-Thinking Reason: New Perspectives in
Critical Thinking as a Political Project, ed. K. Walters. Albany:
State University of New York Press, 9-15.
47. McPeck, John. 1981. Critical Thinking and Education. New
York: St. Martins.
48. McPeck, John. 1990. Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity:
A Reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher 19, n 4: 10-12.
49. Nussbaum, Martha C. 1990. Loves Knowledge. New York:
Oxford University Press.
50. Nussbaum, Martha C. 1992. Emotions as Judgments of
Value. Yale Journal of Criticism 5, n 2: 201-212.
51. Nussbaum, Martha C. 2001. Upheavals of thought: The
intelligence of emotions. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
52. Nussbaum, Martha C. 2006. Education and Democratic
Citizenship: Capabilities and Quality Education. Journal
of Human Development 7, n 3: 385-395.
53. Parker, Walter C. 1996. Educating the Democratic Mind.
Albany: SUNY Press.
117

54. Parker, Walter C. 2003. Teaching Democracy: Unity and

Diversity in Public Life. New York: Teachers College Press.
55. Paul, Richard. 1990. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs
to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Rohnert Park: Center
for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique at Sonoma State
University.
56. Perkins, David. 1995. Smart Schools: From Training Memories to
Educating Minds. New York: Free Press.
57. Perkins, David. 2001. Wisdom in the Wild. Educational
Psychologist 36, n 4: 265-268.
58. Piaget, Jean. 1957. Construction of Reality in the Child. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
59. Rosenau, Pauline M. 1992. Post-modernism and the Social
Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
60. Scheffler, Israel. 1991. In Praise of the Cognitive Emotions and Other
Essays in the Philosophy of Education. New York: Routledge.
61. Seixas, Peter. 2004. Theorizing Historical Consciousness.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
62. Selman, Robert. 2003. The Promotion of Social Awareness:
Powerful Lessons for the Partnership of Developmental Theory. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
63. Shemilt, Denis. 1980. History 13-16: Evaluation Study.
London: Holmes McDougall.
64. Siegel, H. 1988. Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking,
and Education. New York: Routledge-Metheun.
65. Siegel, H. 1995. What Price Inclusion? The Teachers College

Record 9, n 1: 6-31.
66. Stearns, Peter N., Peter Seixas and Samuel S.

Wineburg (eds.). 2000. Knowing, Teaching, and Learning
History: National and International Perspectives. New York:
New York University Press.
67. Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J. 2000. Transforming Critical Thinking:

Thinking Constructively. New York: Teachers College Press.
68. Thompson, Edward Palmer. 1978. The Poverty of Theory &

Other Essays. London: Merlin Press.
69. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.
70. Wertsch, James V. 1997. Narrative Tools of History and
Identity. Culture & psychology 3, n 1: 5-20.
71. West, Cornell. 2004. Democracy Matter: Winning the Fight

Against Imperialism. New York: Penguin.
72. Yates, Miranda and James Youniss. 1996. A Critical

Review of Community Service as a Developmental
Mediator. Social Development 5: 85-111.
73. Young, Marion Iris. 1997. Difference as a Resource for

Democratic Communication. In Deliberative Democracy:
Essays on Reason and Politics, eds. James Bohman and

William Regh. Cambridge: MA. MIT Press, 383-406.
118

Artículo Angela Bermudez

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Artículo Angela Bermudez

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Revista de Estudios Sociales No. 52 rev.estud.soc. Pp. 256.

ISSN 0123-885X Bogot, abril - junio de 2015 Pp. 102-118.

Four Tools for Critical Inquiry in History,

Cuatro herramientas para la indagacin crtica en la enseanza de la historia, las

Quatro ferramentas para a indagao crtica no ensino da histria, das cincias

of current public issues, enduring moral dilemmas, and

We live amid bewildering complexities. Obtuseness and refusal of

(Nussbaum 1990, 148)

he promotion of critical thinking has been

a. Teachers appreciate the general notion of critical

This connection between critical thinking and democratic

Revista de Estudios Sociales No. 52 rev.estud.soc. Pp. 256.

c. Teachers struggle to distinguish between teaching

operations and claim different epistemic and social

In this paper I draw upon scholarship on critical thinking,

Different Theoretical Traditions

traditions, and b) engage with these dilemmas and

Scholarship on history education integrates the

Revista de Estudios Sociales No. 52 rev.estud.soc. Pp. 256.

Table 1. Different Approaches to Critical Inquiry

Critical Thinking Movement

Meta-cognitive assessment of arguments and reasoning

Self-correction, monitoring quality

Disciplined sourcing, multi-causal

Plausible accounts and explanations

Independent judgment that coordinates relevant perspectives

Independent belief and fair choices

Deconstructing / revealing power relations and social structures

Human liberation and social transformation

Table 1 summarizes the different conceptions of critical

different situations, which is different from the notion

Four Critical Inquiry Tools

Problem-posing is the tool that we use to raise critical

On a different note, the notion of tool focuses our

accepted truths, social conventions, alleged natural

psychological storms or murky clouds, and, in fact,

This tool helps us work through the impediments to

This tool is fundamental in critical inquiry because

In this way, this tool generates problems that we can

Its contribution to forming critical citizens seems obvious.

Revista de Estudios Sociales No. 52 rev.estud.soc. Pp. 256.

and creative understanding and social transformation.

the specific subject matter. In history, for example, the

The examination of underlying assumptions: Critical inquiry

relied upon have been corroded and dissolved by doubt. It is doubt

The tool of reflective skepticism serves us to process

Revealing and correcting distortions: Reflective skepticism also

The methodic scrutiny of arguments and thinking procedures:

This tool is fundamental for critical inquiry both for

individual in every society the political, the military,

and the economic are the most obvious examples-

Multi-perspectivity is the tool that we use to identify,

and their aim is often to get us to acquiesce without

reflection in the views they want us to have. The armor

concerned, but in a populace so armored it could be

Reflective skepticism matters because it protects us from

The tool of multi-perspectivity performs three core

In sum, reflective skepticism helps us to work through the

There are different approaches to perspective-taking.

Research on moral development distinguishes two

A social perspective is a standpoint that implies certain ways of

Revista de Estudios Sociales No. 52 rev.estud.soc. Pp. 256.

order to gain a third-person view that is increasingly

is stressed in the different theoretical traditions. For